The sixth edition of the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Depressive Disorder (KMAP-DD) was published in 2025. This review compared KMAP-DD 2025 with four major international clinical practice guidelines: Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Major Depressive Disorders, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Depression Guideline, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists Clinical Practice Guidelines for Mood Disorders, and British Association for Psychopharmacology Guideline. While KMAP-DD is based on expert consensus, and others on evidence-based methods, overall treatment strategies for depressive episodes were fairly consistent. Especially, KMAP-DD 2025 offers more structured recommendations in areas lacking strong evidence, such as premenstrual dysphoric disorder, perinatal depression, and depression with medical comorbidities. KMAP-DD 2025 also reflected Korean clinical practice patterns emphasizing rapid symptom relief and early use of combination strategies. Despite limitations as a consensus-based guideline, KMAP-DD 2025 complements evidence-based approaches and provides practical, situation-specific guidance for real-world clinical decision-making in Korea.

Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of buspirone as an adjunctive therapy for alleviating anxiety symptoms in patients with depressive disorders who are already taking antidepressants. Methods: This was an open-label prospective multicenter non-interventional observational study conducted over 12 weeks. We enrolled 180 patients diagnosed with depressive disorders according to DSM-5 criteria and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scores ≥ 18. Participants were already taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotoninnorepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and were prescribed adjunctive buspirone. Efficacy was assessed using HAMA, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Clinical Global Impression Scale-Improvement, Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity, Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Results: The efficacy analysis included 161 patients. HAMA scores decreased significantly from 25.2 ± 6.7 at baseline to 15.4 ± 8.6 at 12 weeks (p ＜ 0.001), whereas HAMD scores decreased from 19.4 ± 4.6 to 12.7 ± 5.7 (p ＜ 0.001).WHO-5 and SDS scores showed significant improvements. The HAMA response rate was 39.1% and the remission rate was 13.7% at 12 weeks. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 3.7% of participants. Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in treatment response based on buspirone dosage, baseline anxiety/depression severity, or benzodiazepine use. Conclusion Adjunctive buspirone therapy effectively improved anxiety symptoms in depressed patients taking antidepressants, regardless of baseline symptom severity or buspirone dosage. The treatment was well-tolerated with few adverse events. Future studies using a control group are needed.

Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of buspirone as an adjunctive therapy for alleviating anxiety symptoms in patients with depressive disorders who are already taking antidepressants. Methods: This was an open-label prospective multicenter non-interventional observational study conducted over 12 weeks. We enrolled 180 patients diagnosed with depressive disorders according to DSM-5 criteria and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scores ≥ 18. Participants were already taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotoninnorepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and were prescribed adjunctive buspirone. Efficacy was assessed using HAMA, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Clinical Global Impression Scale-Improvement, Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity, Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Results: The efficacy analysis included 161 patients. HAMA scores decreased significantly from 25.2 ± 6.7 at baseline to 15.4 ± 8.6 at 12 weeks (p ＜ 0.001), whereas HAMD scores decreased from 19.4 ± 4.6 to 12.7 ± 5.7 (p ＜ 0.001).WHO-5 and SDS scores showed significant improvements. The HAMA response rate was 39.1% and the remission rate was 13.7% at 12 weeks. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 3.7% of participants. Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in treatment response based on buspirone dosage, baseline anxiety/depression severity, or benzodiazepine use. Conclusion Adjunctive buspirone therapy effectively improved anxiety symptoms in depressed patients taking antidepressants, regardless of baseline symptom severity or buspirone dosage. The treatment was well-tolerated with few adverse events. Future studies using a control group are needed.

Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of buspirone as an adjunctive therapy for alleviating anxiety symptoms in patients with depressive disorders who are already taking antidepressants. Methods: This was an open-label prospective multicenter non-interventional observational study conducted over 12 weeks. We enrolled 180 patients diagnosed with depressive disorders according to DSM-5 criteria and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scores ≥ 18. Participants were already taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotoninnorepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and were prescribed adjunctive buspirone. Efficacy was assessed using HAMA, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Clinical Global Impression Scale-Improvement, Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity, Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Results: The efficacy analysis included 161 patients. HAMA scores decreased significantly from 25.2 ± 6.7 at baseline to 15.4 ± 8.6 at 12 weeks (p ＜ 0.001), whereas HAMD scores decreased from 19.4 ± 4.6 to 12.7 ± 5.7 (p ＜ 0.001).WHO-5 and SDS scores showed significant improvements. The HAMA response rate was 39.1% and the remission rate was 13.7% at 12 weeks. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 3.7% of participants. Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in treatment response based on buspirone dosage, baseline anxiety/depression severity, or benzodiazepine use. Conclusion Adjunctive buspirone therapy effectively improved anxiety symptoms in depressed patients taking antidepressants, regardless of baseline symptom severity or buspirone dosage. The treatment was well-tolerated with few adverse events. Future studies using a control group are needed.

Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of buspirone as an adjunctive therapy for alleviating anxiety symptoms in patients with depressive disorders who are already taking antidepressants. Methods: This was an open-label prospective multicenter non-interventional observational study conducted over 12 weeks. We enrolled 180 patients diagnosed with depressive disorders according to DSM-5 criteria and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scores ≥ 18. Participants were already taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotoninnorepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and were prescribed adjunctive buspirone. Efficacy was assessed using HAMA, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Clinical Global Impression Scale-Improvement, Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity, Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Results: The efficacy analysis included 161 patients. HAMA scores decreased significantly from 25.2 ± 6.7 at baseline to 15.4 ± 8.6 at 12 weeks (p ＜ 0.001), whereas HAMD scores decreased from 19.4 ± 4.6 to 12.7 ± 5.7 (p ＜ 0.001).WHO-5 and SDS scores showed significant improvements. The HAMA response rate was 39.1% and the remission rate was 13.7% at 12 weeks. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 3.7% of participants. Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in treatment response based on buspirone dosage, baseline anxiety/depression severity, or benzodiazepine use. Conclusion Adjunctive buspirone therapy effectively improved anxiety symptoms in depressed patients taking antidepressants, regardless of baseline symptom severity or buspirone dosage. The treatment was well-tolerated with few adverse events. Future studies using a control group are needed.

Objective: Because of the possible therapeutic benefit of removing occult tumor cells, a source of recurrence and chemoresistance, total parietal peritonectomy (TPP) is an alternative treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian/fallopian tube/primary peritoneal cancer. Interventional studies comparing TPP with selective parietal peritonectomy (SPP) are in progress. Since surgeons skilled in TPP are essential for such trials to be conducted, this nationwide survey aimed to examine current peritonectomy practice among gynecologic oncologists in Korea. Methods: A 17-item questionnaire, developed by a surgery committee and reviewed by the scientific review board of the Korean Gynecology Oncology Group (KGOG), was distributed to 144 KGOG members. The questionnaire was divided into 3 categories: respondent demographics, peritonectomy practice during primary debulking surgery (PDS), and peritonectomy practice during interval debulking surgery (IDS). Results: We received 88 (61.1%) valid responses. Of the valid respondents, 98.9% and 93.8% performed SPP during PDS and IDS, respectively. Only 4.9% of the respondents performed TPP during IDS. Most respondents performed peritonectomy in cases where optimal postoperative outcomes were expected. Approximately 50.6% of the respondents had performed peritonectomy independently, while the others did so in cooperation with non-gynecologic surgeons. The primary reasons for not performing TPP were concerns about morbidity and uncertainty about the clinical benefits of the procedure. Conclusion SPP is the predominant technique used in both PDS and IDS in Korea. A small percentage (4.9%) of gynecologic oncologists have performed TPP during IDS. Accordingly, a study regarding the feasibility of TPP should be conducted before proceeding with a prospective clinical trial.

Background: Mismatch repair deficient (MMRd) tumors are known to be highly immunogenic and of great interest for immune checkpoint inhibitor. However, there is no data about the complete response (CR) rate of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade and surgery in subjects with MMRd surgically resectable endometrial cancer. In this regard, we suggest a window of opportunity study of induction PD-1 blockade (nivolumab) in patients with surgically resectable MMRd endometrial cancer. Methods This is a multicenter, single-arm phase II trial. A total of 30 surgically resectable MMRd endometrial cancer patients will be enrolled. Inclusion criteria include clinical stage I–IIIC2, tumor specimen that demonstrates MMRd by immunohistochemistry or microsatellite instability. Exclusion criteria include multiple primary cancers, residual adverse effects of prior therapy or effects of surgery. Patients are treated with nivolumab 480 mg intravenously every 4 weeks up to 6 months followed by standard surgery and/or adjuvant treatment. The primary endpoint of the study is clinical CR rate or pathological CR rate after treatment of nivolumab. Secondary endpoints include objective response rate, progressionfree survival, overall survival, and adverse events. Correlative studies include genomic characterization of tumors, assessment of immune infiltration of tumor microenvironment, and serial circulating cell-free DNA and immune biomarkers.

Objective: Since its development in 2002 by the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology and the Korean Society for Affective Disorders, the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Depressive Disorder (KMAP-DD) has undergone five revisions. Methods: To improve survey efficiency, reflect general clinical practice, and facilitate comparisons with previous KMAP-DD revisions, the overall structure of the questionnaire was retained. The six sections of the questionnaire were as follows:1) pharmacological treatment strategies for major depressive disorder with and without psychotic features; 2) pharmacological treatment strategies for persistent depressive disorder and other depressive disorder subtypes; 3) consensus on treatment-resistant depression; 4) selection of an antidepressant in consideration of safety, adverse effects, and comorbid physical conditions; 5) treatment strategies for special populations (children/adolescents, elderly, and women); and 6) non-pharmacological biological therapies. First-, second-, and third-line treatment recommendations were statistically derived. Results: Compared to KMAP-DD 2021, only minor changes were noted, due to the limited introduction of new medications or treatment modalities. Nonetheless, notable shifts included an increased preference for atypical antipsychotics (AAPs), and higher preference of combination strategies involving AAPs and mood stabilizers, indicating a more proactive and intensive treatment trend in Korea. Conclusion KMAP-DD is expected to serve as a valuable clinical resource by providing expert consensus-based recommendations on specific treatment strategies and pharmacological options for major depressive disorders, thereby supporting the integration of real-world clinical practice with evidence-based medicine.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Korea and the third leading cause of death from cancer. Treatment outcomes for colon cancer are steadily improving due to national health screening programs with advances in diagnostic methods, surgical techniques, and therapeutic agents.. The Korea Colon Cancer Multidisciplinary (KCCM) Committee intends to provide professionals who treat colon cancer with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice guidelines to improve outcomes and help them make decisions that reflect their patients’ values and preferences. These guidelines have been established by consensus reached by the KCCM Guideline Committee based on a systematic literature review and evidence synthesis and by considering the national health insurance system in real clinical practice settings. Each recommendation is presented with a recommendation strength and level of evidence based on the consensus of the committee.

Safe and effective sedation depends on various factors, such as the choice of sedatives, sedation techniques used, experience of the sedation provider, degree of sedation-related education and training, equipment and healthcare worker availability, the patient’s underlying diseases, and the procedure being performed. The purpose of these evidence-based multidisciplinary clinical practice guidelines is to ensure the safety and efficacy of sedation, thereby contributing to patient safety and ultimately improving public health. These clinical practice guidelines comprise 15 key questions covering various topics related to the following: the sedation providers; medications and equipment available; appropriate patient selection; anesthesiologist referrals for high-risk patients; pre-sedation fasting; comparison of representative drugs used in adult and pediatric patients; respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and sedation depth monitoring during sedation; management of respiratory complications during pediatric sedation; and discharge criteria. The recommendations in these clinical practice guidelines were systematically developed to assist providers and patients in sedation-related decision making for diagnostic and therapeutic examinations or procedures. Depending on the characteristics of primary, secondary, and tertiary care institutions as well as the clinical needs and limitations, sedation providers at each medical institution may choose to apply the recommendations as they are, modify them appropriately, or reject them completely.